Editorial: Bay plan should guarantee local control

Opponents of the Plan Bay Area display signs during the final public meeting Thursday, May 30, 2013, at the Marin Civic Center in San Rafael, Calif. (Courtesy of Brent Ainsworth)
Marin Independent Journal

DESPITE ASSURANCES from the authors of Plan Bay Area that the regional growth plan is not intended to undermine local control in shaping land-use decisions, those promises are not persuading critics.

Even after nearly two years of debate and study, the enactment of regional planning standards is seen as a threat to local control, to communities' right to determine their own growth, including building densities.

The authors of Plan Bay Area, essentially leaders of the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, need to reinforce their promise with crystal clear language that jurisdictions that don't follow the plan's guidelines won't be penalized, starved of state and federal transportation, housing and energy and environmental grants.

The focus should be on counties' success in doing their fair share, not how that's accomplished.

The much-debated planning guidelines are aimed at promoting transit- and pedestrian-oriented development in an effort to combat global warming by reversing suburban sprawl. That's done by focusing housing in areas within a walk or bike ride from transit and jobs.

The goal is to reduce Bay Area residents' reliance on gas-guzzling, pollution-generating and gridlock-causing cars.

The plan promotes a carrot-and-stick approach.

The nagging question: Does the plan leads to an overbearing regional governance far removed from voters? Will that government wield a stick to enforce planning guidelines?

Meeting regional planning goals deserve to be rewarded with funding support, but the building densities advanced in the plan don't fit every community. What might complement land uses in Walnut Creek are going to reflect a major change in San Rafael or Novato.

The plan needs to do a better job reflecting and respecting differences in size and densities of cities across the Bay Area.

There's no question that California has been a model for suburban sprawl. Workers' commutes have grown longer, pollution remains a serious problem, transportation remains a huge generator of greenhouse gases and the need for additional freeway lanes and other transportation improvements continues to grow.

Plan Bay Area tries to establish a new, smarter model.

Marin needs do its fair share. That includes focusing on appropriate opportunities to build workforce housing, but in a way that the size, design and location make sense and fit into local communities.

The plan, which is projected to be approved in mid-July, needs to respect the differences of Bay Area towns and cities. That's why the plan deserves to be considered, publicly debated and voted on by the entire 101-member ABAG general assembly.

Perhaps appropriate language protecting local control will come from a wide-open discussion and public debate of all of ABAG's members. The plan and its long-term ramifications is important enough to warrant that full-fledged public debate.